- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:16:27 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Apr 17, 2009, at 13:19 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2009, at 13:24, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> Trying to separate the discussion from the change request: would
>> you be satisfied if requirements to perform C14N were removed and
>> reliance on XSD data types for definition purposes were replaced
>> with something less scary (though in this case this is a bit of a
>> FUD argument Henri, the referenced types aren't overwhelming)?
>
> However, if that's not feasible, my next preferred option would
> indeed be removing the requirement to perform canonicalization (i.e.
> sign XML as binary with a detached traditional binary signature
> block).
I will let the digsig experts comment on the feasibility of this.
> As for the data types, I'd be satisfied if the datatypes were
> defined in such a way that attribute value parsing algorithms and
> conversion methods that a browser engine has to contain anyway were
> reusable. This should include well-defined behavior in the case of
> non-conforming input.
That's reasonable.
> XSD which even allows leap seconds!
I like leap seconds, they're nice!
> (Is it a FUD argument that XSD dates deviate from the value space
> that is typically used in Posix date conversions between multi-unit
> tuples and epoch seconds?)
No, that's not what I said. I know XSD painfully enough to know the
monsters that lurk there, and generally support defining things
without it if possible. I was referring to statements such as "unless
widget impls are supposed to bring in huge off-the-shelf XSD
machinery" when we're talking about ID, anyURI, string, integer,
base64Binary, dateTime. These certainly have issues, but they can
nevertheless be operated while drunk :)
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 13:17:05 UTC